Sorry buddy, this comment is not a direct response to your poem. It is a response to a handful of your past writings, which took a while to digest and reflect upon. I am sure this comment makes no sense, but I can't say much more for your poem, oh the poet's . . . rarely understood in their lifetime. This critique and alternative viewpoint is written through the lens of theories supporting deterrence and punishment to those not conforming to a greater society. I find this perspective appropriate because it is the same perspective the legislature uses when drafting criminal statues and the same perspective used at detention centers. This is and international and universally dominant theory in deterrence and punishment to those that threaten society. Initially, in the United States, England, and other developed countries, criminals and “outlaws” to society were extinguished and killed, by hanging, torture, or beheadings. William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, and a Quaker was the first to initiate this theory of deterrence and punishment. Since he was a Quaker, he did not believe in killing those that committed crimes, instead he was the first to incarcerate “outlaws” to society leaving them with nothing but a bed, toilet, and a bible. Soon after Penn tried this in his Quaker society, England and other developed nations quickly followed suite. Deterrence and punishment theory is a theory of societal obligations. If one feels he has no obligations to society, he is punished into submission or punishment of others serves to deter him from behavior outside the acceptable norms of society. The theory of deterrence and punishment stresses the proper balance between benefit and obedience of society by insuring that there is no profit in criminal wrongdoing or commitment of crimes. Hands on deterrence is not a peaceful passive process. All of us are governed by deterrence and punishment in the United States, it is the theory that makes us respect and obey the laws of the state. People are governed in their daily lives by rewards and penalties of every sort. We shop for bargain prices at the grocery store and with drug dealers, praise our children for good behavior and scold them for bad, expect low interest rates to stimulate home building and fear high rates will depress the market, conduct ourselves in public in ways that lead our friends and neighbors to form good opinions of us. To assert “deterrence doesn’t work” is tantamount bullshit and denies the plainest facts of everyday life. It is the best and most universally accepted theory to govern society. However, some people don’t listen and don’t care. For them, deterrence is an unexplainable word that has no meaning. They most likely have a weaker conscious, stronger self-security, worry less about their reputation in polite society, and find it harder to postpone gratifying urges. If one possesses purely animal instincts and fleeting impulses, they are outcast. Men just like myself, but who lack self-control.. Lets assume society needs consistency and control. What to do with the “outcast?” There are three viable options, they must be incarcerated, rehabilitated, or eliminated. There is no other option, if those individuals saturate society, society ceases to exist as we know it! We will live in anarchy, which might be fun when you are young and clueless, but will be terrifying to the old men and women and young children, because they have no place in a lawless society and will not be the stronger. Rehabilitation doesn’t work . . . the reason, it must be voluntary, you can’t force different attitudes, thoughts, and thinking onto someone unless they want it or you force it. Shock theory is not mellow and can’t be used on anyone except a narrow class of eligible individuals. In America, we don’t’ rehabilitate people so they feel cozy inside. We do it because the prisons are crowded and we have less money and space to build more. Almost every community blocks initiates to build new prisons in their town, for fear of escaped convicts and depressing the housing market. Some individuals feel criminal society and terrorist society is driven by the market. If one criminal/terrorist is taken off the street, five new criminals replace him trying to get a piece of the pie. Those individuals are not driven by rewards and penalties like most other American’s, they are driven by free will and opportunity. Choosing to do wrong, because they feel like it. The government realizes rehabilitation doesn’t work. From 1950’s-1970s the government pushed rehabilitation over deterrence, however this doesn’t work, modern though only accepts deterrence through punishment and penalties. Additionally, some criminals are deterred by offering potential rewards (good behavior = time credits) giving them an incentive to be good. In Iraq, same situation. We cannot rehabilitation due to cost, time, uncertainty, and societal differences. Therefore, the only viable option is to deter and control through punishment and to a greater extent, elimination. We must clearly assume, as does the Bush administration, from a scientific point of view, the key to resolving conflicting goals between people lies in detection, prosecution, and punishment. Is there a better alternative to submission . . . ? No. When you adapt a dog, do you let it run wild and live life as it sees fit? Maybe if it’s a naturally obedient dog, but if you have a wild dog, do you let it run wild in your house and neighborhood? . . . hell ‘to the motherfuckin’ no. People beat, yell, scare, hose, and rub their dogs faces in their own feces into submission. Deterrence is a function of both certainty and severity of punishment. I cannot absorb the rationality behind it, I just know I cannot think of a better alternative that works. Sometimes you cannot talk sense to an enraged methhead, rapist, murder who will not listen to reason. The same goes for an Islamic fundamentalist (not radical Islamic fascist as Bush calls them – Fascist assumes connection and passion for the state, while terrorist seem more connected to religion and a specific cause.) Therefore, how is this different from Iraq? What is a better approach? I see the philosophy the legislature and the Bush administration uses for Iraq and the Middle East is the SAME philosophy that they use in statues and penalties within the American criminal justice system! The SAME: a system of deterrence through rehabilitation, punishment, and elimination. The last two being the dominant. Rehabiliation is only for minor drug users or first time users, anything else or anybody else you are punished or eliminated (especially in Texas!). In the Middle East . . . For years I assumed peaceful transition and guidance oversight what the only fair and just transition for that region. However, I now realize this would never work, it would be a worst mess than it is now. Morally, it would be an enormously better option. Functionally . . . no, its like building a prison and having the prisoners run the facility, no way in hell would there be stability. I believe there are only two feasible options in Iraq. (1) Wait for warlords, religious leaders, and religious terrorist to kill each other out until one group survives as the stronger and brings stability to the region on its own; or (2) invade and control the inhabitants into submission and offer rewards for good behavior. For decades instability has plagued the region with no peace in sight, therefore option one is impractical and unachievable in the near future. Option 2 is the only option left. The option morally sucks, however, is the cure worst than the illness? Probably, only b/c it effects American lives in a completely indirect negative way through deficit, taxes, lost lives, and annoyance. However, this may pay off in 20 years? Its like being the big bully in school and picking on all the littler and weaker kids. However . . . if you are the bully, and there is no teacher to check you, what is the lost to you? I have always viewed the Iraq situation through the lens of the Iraqi’s and felt America was so wrong. However, when I view it through the lens of America, I still can’t justify it, but I can understand it. The danger of sympathizing with the Bush Administration is the tendency of the administration to “overpredict” dangerousness through a clinical and statistical forecast of “impartibly” theories or hypothetical’s. Almost everything in Iraq and the Middle East is against American norms and customs. That alone is a threat. America feels through such misunderstanding and radical differences, their people will always view us as in the wrong and will try to hurt us. This seems stupid to me b/c how can a bunch of cronies in Iraq every seriously threaten America’s world dominance? They can’t, but they can cause problems. Count Dracula ruled his country and was a national hero. He built his country, expanded it, and was the great defender. On the face, it would seem he had no serious threats and could live in peace. Yet he was always worried about the Ottoman-Turkish Empire looming on the other side of his borders and threatening his control of the commerce trade. His invasion to expel them, and their eventually repel attack led to his death and the submission of his country to the Turks. The Greeks controlled the world but had the Romans invading, than the Romans ruled the world and than came Hannibal and so on so on and so one. Today does America have a threat? Not really, but what’s the biggest threat: Middle East terrorist, China’s massive profits and military upgrading, and N.Korea obsession with power and dominance in S.Asia through intimidation and military proliferation. More simply put and getting to the point of common sense and international “old school” foreign relations, If a fly is annoying you, you may not chase it around the house b/c its not worth it, but when the fly lands on the table in front of you and offers an easy target . . . Most likely you smash, unless you’re a pacifist. The U.S. saw Iraq as an easy target and jumped before they could fly away. Punishment is not a virtue, only a necessity. I know this was ridiculous roundabout discussion with no true organization or focus, but that’s what a blog is. I suppose my point is, the Bush Administration handles a “rogue” state like Iraq, exactly like it handles “rogue” citizens by deterring and punishing them through the criminal justice system. The American criminal justice system is the best and safest in the world, just ask the sex predator who wanted to leave the Thai prison to come to America for the murder of a Ramsey. When viewed through the lens of the criminal punishment system, which is dominated by deterrence and punishment, America’s way of handling Iraq is . . . possible understood. ? I need to think more on this issue and look up some policies to get a clearer understanding. Your thoughts?
2 comments:
Sorry buddy, this comment is not a direct response to your poem. It is a response to a handful of your past writings, which took a while to digest and reflect upon. I am sure this comment makes no sense, but I can't say much more for your poem, oh the poet's . . . rarely understood in their lifetime.
This critique and alternative viewpoint is written through the lens of theories supporting deterrence and punishment to those not conforming to a greater society. I find this perspective appropriate because it is the same perspective the legislature uses when drafting criminal statues and the same perspective used at detention centers. This is and international and universally dominant theory in deterrence and punishment to those that threaten society. Initially, in the United States, England, and other developed countries, criminals and “outlaws” to society were extinguished and killed, by hanging, torture, or beheadings. William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, and a Quaker was the first to initiate this theory of deterrence and punishment. Since he was a Quaker, he did not believe in killing those that committed crimes, instead he was the first to incarcerate “outlaws” to society leaving them with nothing but a bed, toilet, and a bible. Soon after Penn tried this in his Quaker society, England and other developed nations quickly followed suite. Deterrence and punishment theory is a theory of societal obligations. If one feels he has no obligations to society, he is punished into submission or punishment of others serves to deter him from behavior outside the acceptable norms of society. The theory of deterrence and punishment stresses the proper balance between benefit and obedience of society by insuring that there is no profit in criminal wrongdoing or commitment of crimes. Hands on deterrence is not a peaceful passive process.
All of us are governed by deterrence and punishment in the United States, it is the theory that makes us respect and obey the laws of the state. People are governed in their daily lives by rewards and penalties of every sort. We shop for bargain prices at the grocery store and with drug dealers, praise our children for good behavior and scold them for bad, expect low interest rates to stimulate home building and fear high rates will depress the market, conduct ourselves in public in ways that lead our friends and neighbors to form good opinions of us. To assert “deterrence doesn’t work” is tantamount bullshit and denies the plainest facts of everyday life. It is the best and most universally accepted theory to govern society.
However, some people don’t listen and don’t care. For them, deterrence is an unexplainable word that has no meaning. They most likely have a weaker conscious, stronger self-security, worry less about their reputation in polite society, and find it harder to postpone gratifying urges. If one possesses purely animal instincts and fleeting impulses, they are outcast. Men just like myself, but who lack self-control.. Lets assume society needs consistency and control. What to do with the “outcast?” There are three viable options, they must be incarcerated, rehabilitated, or eliminated. There is no other option, if those individuals saturate society, society ceases to exist as we know it! We will live in anarchy, which might be fun when you are young and clueless, but will be terrifying to the old men and women and young children, because they have no place in a lawless society and will not be the stronger.
Rehabilitation doesn’t work . . . the reason, it must be voluntary, you can’t force different attitudes, thoughts, and thinking onto someone unless they want it or you force it. Shock theory is not mellow and can’t be used on anyone except a narrow class of eligible individuals. In America, we don’t’ rehabilitate people so they feel cozy inside. We do it because the prisons are crowded and we have less money and space to build more. Almost every community blocks initiates to build new prisons in their town, for fear of escaped convicts and depressing the housing market.
Some individuals feel criminal society and terrorist society is driven by the market. If one criminal/terrorist is taken off the street, five new criminals replace him trying to get a piece of the pie. Those individuals are not driven by rewards and penalties like most other American’s, they are driven by free will and opportunity. Choosing to do wrong, because they feel like it. The government realizes rehabilitation doesn’t work. From 1950’s-1970s the government pushed rehabilitation over deterrence, however this doesn’t work, modern though only accepts deterrence through punishment and penalties. Additionally, some criminals are deterred by offering potential rewards (good behavior = time credits) giving them an incentive to be good. In Iraq, same situation. We cannot rehabilitation due to cost, time, uncertainty, and societal differences. Therefore, the only viable option is to deter and control through punishment and to a greater extent, elimination.
We must clearly assume, as does the Bush administration, from a scientific point of view, the key to resolving conflicting goals between people lies in detection, prosecution, and punishment. Is there a better alternative to submission . . . ? No. When you adapt a dog, do you let it run wild and live life as it sees fit? Maybe if it’s a naturally obedient dog, but if you have a wild dog, do you let it run wild in your house and neighborhood? . . . hell ‘to the motherfuckin’ no. People beat, yell, scare, hose, and rub their dogs faces in their own feces into submission. Deterrence is a function of both certainty and severity of punishment. I cannot absorb the rationality behind it, I just know I cannot think of a better alternative that works. Sometimes you cannot talk sense to an enraged methhead, rapist, murder who will not listen to reason. The same goes for an Islamic fundamentalist (not radical Islamic fascist as Bush calls them – Fascist assumes connection and passion for the state, while terrorist seem more connected to religion and a specific cause.) Therefore, how is this different from Iraq? What is a better approach? I see the philosophy the legislature and the Bush administration uses for Iraq and the Middle East is the SAME philosophy that they use in statues and penalties within the American criminal justice system! The SAME: a system of deterrence through rehabilitation, punishment, and elimination. The last two being the dominant. Rehabiliation is only for minor drug users or first time users, anything else or anybody else you are punished or eliminated (especially in Texas!).
In the Middle East . . . For years I assumed peaceful transition and guidance oversight what the only fair and just transition for that region. However, I now realize this would never work, it would be a worst mess than it is now. Morally, it would be an enormously better option. Functionally . . . no, its like building a prison and having the prisoners run the facility, no way in hell would there be stability. I believe there are only two feasible options in Iraq. (1) Wait for warlords, religious leaders, and religious terrorist to kill each other out until one group survives as the stronger and brings stability to the region on its own; or (2) invade and control the inhabitants into submission and offer rewards for good behavior. For decades instability has plagued the region with no peace in sight, therefore option one is impractical and unachievable in the near future. Option 2 is the only option left. The option morally sucks, however, is the cure worst than the illness? Probably, only b/c it effects American lives in a completely indirect negative way through deficit, taxes, lost lives, and annoyance. However, this may pay off in 20 years? Its like being the big bully in school and picking on all the littler and weaker kids. However . . . if you are the bully, and there is no teacher to check you, what is the lost to you? I have always viewed the Iraq situation through the lens of the Iraqi’s and felt America was so wrong. However, when I view it through the lens of America, I still can’t justify it, but I can understand it.
The danger of sympathizing with the Bush Administration is the tendency of the administration to “overpredict” dangerousness through a clinical and statistical forecast of “impartibly” theories or hypothetical’s.
Almost everything in Iraq and the Middle East is against American norms and customs. That alone is a threat. America feels through such misunderstanding and radical differences, their people will always view us as in the wrong and will try to hurt us. This seems stupid to me b/c how can a bunch of cronies in Iraq every seriously threaten America’s world dominance? They can’t, but they can cause problems. Count Dracula ruled his country and was a national hero. He built his country, expanded it, and was the great defender. On the face, it would seem he had no serious threats and could live in peace. Yet he was always worried about the Ottoman-Turkish Empire looming on the other side of his borders and threatening his control of the commerce trade. His invasion to expel them, and their eventually repel attack led to his death and the submission of his country to the Turks. The Greeks controlled the world but had the Romans invading, than the Romans ruled the world and than came Hannibal and so on so on and so one. Today does America have a threat? Not really, but what’s the biggest threat: Middle East terrorist, China’s massive profits and military upgrading, and N.Korea obsession with power and dominance in S.Asia through intimidation and military proliferation. More simply put and getting to the point of common sense and international “old school” foreign relations, If a fly is annoying you, you may not chase it around the house b/c its not worth it, but when the fly lands on the table in front of you and offers an easy target . . . Most likely you smash, unless you’re a pacifist. The U.S. saw Iraq as an easy target and jumped before they could fly away. Punishment is not a virtue, only a necessity.
I know this was ridiculous roundabout discussion with no true organization or focus, but that’s what a blog is. I suppose my point is, the Bush Administration handles a “rogue” state like Iraq, exactly like it handles “rogue” citizens by deterring and punishing them through the criminal justice system. The American criminal justice system is the best and safest in the world, just ask the sex predator who wanted to leave the Thai prison to come to America for the murder of a Ramsey. When viewed through the lens of the criminal punishment system, which is dominated by deterrence and punishment, America’s way of handling Iraq is . . . possible understood. ? I need to think more on this issue and look up some policies to get a clearer understanding. Your thoughts?
eb
Post a Comment